1 . Albert Einstein’s 1915 masterpiece “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity” is the first and still the best introduction to the subject, and I recommend it as such to students. But it probably wouldn’t be publishable in a scientific journal today.
Why not? After all, it would pass with flying colours the tests of correctness and significance. And while popular belief holds that the paper was incomprehensible to its first readers, in fact many papers in theoretical physics are much more difficult.
As the physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “There was a time when the newspapers said that only 12 men understood the theory of relativity. I do believe there might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than 12.”
No, the problem is its style. It starts with a leisurely philosophical discussion of space and time and then continues with an exposition of known mathematics. Those two sections, which would be considered extraneous today, take up half the paper. Worse, there are zero citations of previous scientists’ work, nor are there any graphics. Those features might make a paper not even get past the first editors.
A similar process of professionalization has transformed other parts of the scientific landscape. Requests for research time at major observatories or national laboratories are more rigidly structured. And anything involving work with human subjects, or putting instruments in space, involves piles of paperwork.
We see it also in the Regeneron Science Talent Search, the Nobel Prize of high school science competitions. In the early decades of its 78-year history, the winning projects were usually the sort of clever but naive, amateurish efforts one might expect of talented beginners working on their own. Today, polished work coming out of internships(实习) at established laboratories is the norm.
These professionalizing tendencies are a natural consequence of the explosive growth of modern science. Standardization and system make it easier to manage the rapid flow of papers, applications and people. But there are serious downsides. A lot of unproductive effort goes into jumping through bureaucratic hoops(繁文缛节), and outsiders face entry barriers at every turn.
Of course, Einstein would have found his way to meeting modern standards and publishing his results. Its scientific core wouldn’t have changed, but the paper might not be the same taste to read.
1. According to Richard Feynman, Einstein’s 1915 paper ________.| A．was a classic in theoretical physics |
| B．turned out to be comprehensible |
| C．needed further improvement |
| D．attracted few professionals |
| A．Unrealistic. | B．Irrelevant. |
| C．Unattractive. | D．Imprecise. |
| A．The application of research findings. |
| B．The principle of scientific research. |
| C．The selection of young talents. |
| D．The evaluation of laboratories. |
| A．What makes Einstein great? |
| B．Will science be professionalized? |
| C．Could Einstein get published today? |
| D．How will modern science make advances? |
2 . The vaccine (疫苗) news continues to seem very encouraging. Britain started its mass vaccination effort and the U.S. isn’t far behind.
But there is still one dark cloud hanging over the vaccines that many people don’t yet understand.
The vaccines will be much less effective at preventing death and illness in 2021 if they are introduced into a population where the coronavirus is still severe—as is now the case in the U.S.
A vaccine is like a fire hose (消防龙头). A vaccine that’s 95 percent effective, as Moderna’s and Pfizer’s versions appear to be, is a powerful fire hose. But the size of a fire is still a bigger determinant of how much destruction occurs.
At the current level of infection in the U.S. (about 200,000 confirmed new infections per day), a vaccine that is 95 percent effective—distributed at the expected pace—would still leave a terrible toll (伤亡人数) in the six months after it was introduced. Almost 10 million or so Americans would catch the virus, and more than 160,000 would die.
This is far worse than the toll in a different situation where the vaccine was only 50 percent effective but the U.S. had reduced the infection rate to its level in early September (about 35,000 new daily cases). In that case, the death toll in the next six months would be kept to about 60,000.
It’s worth pausing for a moment on this comparison. If the U.S. had maintained its infection rate from September and Moderna and Pfizer had announced this fall that their vaccines were only 50 percent effective, a lot of people would have panicked.
But the reality we have is actually worse.
How could this be? No vaccine can get rid of a pandemic immediately, just as .no fire hose can put out a forest fire. While the vaccine is being distributed, the virus continues to do damage.
There is one positive way to look at this: Measures that reduce the virus’s spread—like mask-wearing, social distancing and rapid-result testing—can still have great consequences. They can save more than 100,000 lives in coming months.
1. How does the author mainly present his argument?| A．By giving definitions. | B．By categorizing facts. |
| C．By drawing comparisons. | D．By appealing to emotions. |
| A．Improving the effectiveness of the vaccines. |
| B．Producing a greater variety of vaccines. |
| C．Looking at the situation in a positive way. |
| D．Wearing masks and practicing social distancing. |
| A．The vaccines are less effective than expected. |
| B．The US have controlled the spread of the coronavirus. |
| C．The death toll in the next six months will be about 60,000. |
| D．Fewer people will die if the infection rate is lower. |
| A．The vaccine is the hope of wiping out the pandemic. |
| B．The public are optimistic about the effects of the vaccine. |
| C．The public are concerned about the high infection rate. |
| D．The distribution of vaccine will end the pandemic quickly. |
3 . The history of microbiology begins with Dutch cloth maker named Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, a man of no formal scientific education. In the late 1600s. Leeuwenhoek, inspired by the magnifying lenses（放大镜）he used to examine cloth, built some of the first-microscopes. He developed technique to improve the quality of tiny, rounded lenses, some of which could magnify an object up to 270 times. After removing some plaque from between his teeth and examining it under a lens, Leeuwenhoek found tiny twisting creatures, which he called “animalcules”.
His observations, which he reported to the Royal Society of London, are among the first descriptions of microbes（微生物）. Leeuwenhoek discovered an entire universe invisible to the human eye. He found different microbes in samples of pond water, rain water, and human blood. He gave the first description of red blood cells, observed plant tissue, examined muscle, and investigated the life cycle of insects.
Nearly two hundred years later, Leeuwenhock’s discovery of microbes helped French chemist and biologist Louis Pasteur to develop his “theory of disease”. This concept suggested that disease originates from tiny organisms attacking and weakening the body. Pasteur’s theory later helped doctors to fight infectious diseases including anthrax, diphtheria, polio, smallpox, tetanus, and typhoid. All these breakthroughs were the result of Leeuwenhoek’s original work. Leeuwenhoek did not foresee this legacy.
In a 1716 letter, he described his contribution to science this way: “My work, which I’ve done for a long time, was not pursued in order to gain the praise I now enjoy, but chiefly from a strong desire for knowledge, which I notice resides in me more than in most other men. And therefore; whenever I found out anything remarkable, I have thought it my duty to put down my discovery on paper, so that the scientific community might be informed thereof.”
1. Which of the following best describes Leeuwenhoek?| A．trained researcher with an interest in microbiology |
| B．A curious amateur who made pioneer studies of microbes |
| C．A talented scientist interested in finding a cure for disease |
| D．A bored cloth maker who accidentally made a major discovery |
| A．the discovery of microbes |
| B．Pasteur’s theory of disease |
| C．Leeuwenhoek’s contribution |
| D．the origin of the tiny organism |
| A．He admitted that many of his discoveries happened by chance. |
| B．He considered his work to be central to later medical breakthroughs. |
| C．He was greatly concerned with improving people’s living conditions. |
| D．He believed the sharing of knowledge was a key to scientific progress |
a. Magnifying lenses were built.
b. The “theory of disease” was put forward
c. Microbes were discovered in samples of waters.
d. Leeuwenhoek’s first microscopes were successfully developed.
e. Leeuwenhoek explained his thoughts upon his own contribution.
| A．a-d-c-e-b | B．d-a-c-e-b | C．a-c-d-b-e | D．d-a-e-b-c |
4 . Hollywood’s theory that machines with evil(邪恶) minds will drive armies of killer robots is just silly. The real problem relates to the possibility that artificial intelligence(AI) may become extremely good at achieving something other than what we really want. In 1960 a well-known mathematician Norbert Wiener, who founded the field of cybernetics（控制论）, put it this way: “If we use, to achieve our purposes, a mechanical agency with whose operation we cannot effectively interfere(干预), we had better be quite sure that the purpose put into the machine is the purpose which we really desire.”
A machine with a specific purpose has another quality, one that we usually associate with living things: a wish to preserve its own existence. For the machine, this quality is not in-born, nor is it something introduced by humans; it is a logical consequence of the simple fact that the machine cannot achieve its original purpose if it is dead. So if we send out a robot with the single instruction of fetching coffee, it will have a strong desire to secure success by disabling its own off switch or even killing anyone who might interfere with its task. If we are not careful, then, we could face a kind of global chess match against very determined, super intelligent machines whose objectives conflict with our own, with the real world as the chessboard.
The possibility of entering into and losing such a match should concentrate the minds of computer scientists. Some researchers argue that we can seal the machines inside a kind of firewall, using them to answer difficult questions but never allowing them to affect the real world. Unfortunately, that plan seems unlikely to work: we have yet to invent a firewall that is secure against ordinary humans, let alone super intelligent machines.
Solving the safety problem well enough to move forward in AI seems to be possible but not easy. There are probably decades in which to plan for the arrival of super intelligent machines. But the problem should not be dismissed out of hand, as it has been by some AI researchers. Some argue that humans and machines can coexist as long as they work in teams—yet that is not possible unless machines share the goals of humans. Others say we can just “switch them off” as if super intelligent machines are too stupid to think of that possibility. Still others think that super intelligent AI will never happen. On September 11, 1933, famous physicist Ernest Rutherford stated, with confidence, “Anyone who expects a source of power in the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.” However, on September 12, 1933, physicist Leo Szilard invented the neutron-induced(中子诱导) nuclear chain reaction.
1. Paragraph 1 mainly tells us that artificial intelligence may .| A．run out of human control |
| B．satisfy human’s real desires |
| C．command armies of killer robots |
| D．work faster than a mathematician |
| A．prevent themselves from being destroyed |
| B．achieve their original goals independently |
| C．do anything successfully with given orders |
| D．beat humans in international chess matches |
| A．help super intelligent machines work better |
| B．be secure against evil human beings |
| C．keep machines from being harmed |
| D．avoid robots’ affecting the world |
| A．It will disappear with the development of AI. |
| B．It will get worse with human interference. |
| C．It will be solved but with difficulty. |
| D．It will stay for a decade. |
5 . I read somewhere that we spend a full third of our lives waiting. But where are we doing all of this waiting, and what does it mean to an impatient society like ours? To understand the issue, let’s take a look at three types of “waits”.
The very purest form of waiting is the Watched-Pot Wait. It is without doubt the most annoying of all. Take filling up the kitchen sink(洗碗池) as an example. There is absolutely nothing you can do while this is going on but keep both eyes fixed on the sink until it’s full. During these waits, the brain slips away from the body and wanders about until the water runs over the edge of the counter and onto your socks. This kind of wait makes the waiter helpless and mindless.
A cousin to the Watched-Pot Wait is the Forced Wait. This one requires a bit of discipline. Properly preparing packaged noodle soup required a Forced Wait. Directions are very specific. “Bring three cups of water to boil, add mix, simmer three minutes, remove from heat, let stand five minutes.”I have my doubts that anyone has actually followed the procedures strictly. After all, Forced Waiting requires patience.
Perhaps the most powerful type of waiting is the Lucky-Break Wait. This type of wait is unusual in that it is for the most part voluntary. Unlike the Forced Wait, which is also voluntary, waiting for your lucky break does not necessarily mean that it will happen.
Turning one’s life into a waiting game requires faith and hope, and is strictly for the optimists among us. On the surface it seems as ridiculous as following the directions on soup mixes, but the Lucky-Break Wait well serves those who are willing to do it. As long as one doesn’t come to rely on it, wishing for a few good things to happen never hurts anybody.
We certainly do spend a good deal of our time waiting. The next time you’re standing at the sink waiting for it to fill while cooking noodle soup that you’ll have to eat until a large bag of cash falls out of the sky, don’t be desperate. You’re probably just as busy as the next guy.
1. While doing a Watched-Pot Wait, we tend to ___________.| A．keep ourselves busy |
| B．get absent-minded |
| C．grow anxious |
| D．stay focused |
| A．The Forced Wait requires some self-control. |
| B．The Forced Wait makes people passive. |
| C．The Watched-Pot Wait needs directions. |
| D．The Watched-Pot Wait engages body and brain. |
| A．It is less voluntary than the Forced Wait. |
| B．It doesn’t always bring the desired result. |
| C．It is more fruitful than the Forced Wait. |
| D．It doesn’t give people faith and hope. |
| A．Take it seriously. |
| B．Don’t rely on others. |
| C．Do something else. |
| D．Don’t lose heart. |
| A．exploring various causes of “waits”. |
| B．describing detailed processes of “waits”. |
| C．analyzing different categories of “waits” |
| D．revealing frustrating consequences of “waits” |
6 . If you wear glasses, chances are you are smarter. Research published in the famous British journal Nature Communications has found that people who displayed higher levels of intelligence were almost 30 percent more likely to wear glasses.
The scientists studied the genes of thousands of people between the ages of 16 and 102.The study showed intelligence can be connected to physical characteristics. One characteristic was eyesight. In out of 10 people who were more intelligent, there was a higher chance they needed glasses. Scientists also said being smarter has other benefits. It is connected to better health.
It is important to remember these are connections which are not proven causes. Scientists call this correlation. Just because something is connected to something else does not mean one of those things caused the other. And it’s worth noting that what constitutes intelligence is subjective and can be difficult, if not impossible, to measure.
Forget genes though. Plenty of proof shows wearing glasses makes people think you are more intelligent, even if you do not need glasses. A number of studies have found people who wear glasses are seen as smarter, hard-working and honest. Many lawyers use this idea to help win their cases. Lawyer Harvey Solves explained this. Glasses soften their appearance. He said Sometimes there has been a huge amount of proof showing that people he was defending broke the law. He had them wear glasses and they weren’t found guilty.
Glasses are also used to show someone is intelligent in movies and on TV. Ideas about people who wear glasses have begun to shift. People who do not need glasses sometimes wear them for fashion only. They want to look worldly or cool. But not everyone is impressed by this idea, though. GQ magazine said people who wear glasses for fashion are trying too hard to look smart and hip (时髦的). However, that hasn’t stopped many celebrities from happily wearing glasses even if they do not need them. Justin Bieber is just one high-profile fan of fashion glasses.
1. What does the new study show?| A．People wearing glasses are smarter. |
| B．People wearing glasses are healthier. |
| C．Wearing glasses can make people cleverer. |
| D．Wearing glasses is associated with higher IQ. |
| A．Shift. | B．Link. | C．Proof. | D．Consequence. |
| A．Because it can create a moral image. |
| B．Because it can mislead the witnesses. |
| C．Because it can highlight clients’ qualities. |
| D．Because it can prove the clients’ innocence. |
| A．Positive. | B．Negative. | C．Mixed | D．Indifferent. |
7 . Modern medicine’s ability to keep us alive makes it tempting to think human evolution may have stopped. But if we look at the rate of our DNA’s evolution, we can see that human evolution hasn’t stopped – it may even be happening faster than before.
Evolution is a gradual change to the DNA of a species over many generations. It can occur by natural selection, when certain traits created by genetic changes help an organism survive or reproduce. Such genes are thus more likely to be passed on to the next generation, so they increase in frequency in a population. Gradually, these changes and their associated traits become more common among the whole group.
By looking at global studies of our DNA, we can see evidence that natural selection has recently made changes and continues to do so. Though modern healthcare disrupts a key driving force of evolution by keeping some people alive longer, in countries without access to good healthcare, populations are continuing to evolve. Survivors of infectious disease outbreaks drive natural selection by giving their genetic resistance to offspring. Our DNA shows evidence for recent selection for resistance of killer diseases like Lassa fever and malaria. Selection in response to malaria remains in regions where the disease remains common.
Humans are also adapting to their environment. Gene change allowing humans to live at high altitudes have become more common in populations in Tibet, Ethiopia, and the Andes. The spread of genetic changes in Tibet is possibly the fastest evolutionary change in humans, occurring over the past 3,000 years. This rapid increase in frequency of a mutated gene that increases blood oxygen content gives locals a survival advantage in higher altitudes, resulting in more surviving children.
Diet is another source for adaptations. Studies show that natural selection favoring a change allowing adults to produce lactase – the enzyme (酶) that breaks down milk sugars – is why some groups of people can digest milk. Over 80 per cent of northwest Europeans can, but in parts of East Asia, where milk is much less commonly drunk, an inability to digest lactose is the norm. Like high altitude adaptation, selection to digest milk has evolved more than once in humans and may be the strongest kind of recent selection.
Yet, despite these changes, natural selection only affects about 8 per cent of our genome. But scientists can’t explain why some genes are evolving much faster than others. We measure the speed of gene evolution by comparing human DNA with that of other species. One fast-evolving gene is human accelerated region 1 (HAR1), which is needed during brain development. A random section of human DNA is on average more than 98 per cent identical to the chimp comparator, but HAR1 is so fast evolving that it’s only around 85 per cent similar. Though scientists can see these changes are happening – and how quickly – we still don’t fully understand why fast evolution happens to some genes but not others.
1. Which of the following statements may the author agree with?| A．Evolution occurs among several people overnight. |
| B．Genes may change and some are beneficial to people’s lives. |
| C．Evolution is done when the whole population possesses a certain gene. |
| D．The changed genes leading to higher survival rates are chosen deliberately. |
| A．explains | B．causes | C．upsets | D．heals |
| A．some people can resist infectious diseases like malaria |
| B．children in Tibet tolerate living environments with thin air |
| C．northwestern Europeans digest lactose better than East Asians |
| D．the human gene HAR1 resembles that of a chimp to a lesser extent |
| A．What Is Natural Selection? |
| B．Are Humans Still Evolving? |
| C．Why Will Certain Genes Evolve? |
| D．How Do Mutated Genes Function? |
8 . Making beers on the moon might seem like a pipe dream to many, but for a group of students from the University of California at San Diego, there is a chance to take their research beyond Earth’s surface.
The Lab2Moon competition, held by TeamIndus, is offering students the chance to secure a spot on the TeamIndus rocket this year.
Taking craft beer to the next level, the students want to test whether it’s possible for yeast(酵母) to work and create beer on the moon. However, they believe the experiment is not just a creative concept for astronauts, it’s also important for the development of drugs and yeast-containing food, like bread.
“The idea started out with a few laughs among a group of friends,” said Neeki Ashari, a fifth-year bioengineering students at UC San Diego. “We all appreciate the craft beer. When we heard that there was an opportunity to design an experiment that would go up on India’s moonlander, w e thought we could combine our hobby with the competition by focusing on the practicality of yeast in outer space.”
The preparation work for the beer — up to the stage of adding yeast — will all be done on Earth, and rather than separating the fermentation ( 发酵) and carbonation stage of making beer, the team plans to combine them.
This removes the need to release CO2 accumulated in the process, which may result in cleanliness and safety issues out in space.
If selected, Team Original Gravity will be the first to make beer in outer space, and the fermentation will take place in a container no bigger than a soda can.
All teams competing for the place will showcase their ideas in Bangalore, India, in March.
Sadly, you won’t be enjoying moon beer in your local craft beer bar anytime soon, as no samples will be brought back. However, this small experiment could provide important data on just how practical it is for us to make and create our own resources on other planets and moons by learning how consumables (消耗品) behave in different environments.
1. How did the students feel when they got the chance to design the experiment ?| A．Excited. | B．Nervous. |
| C．Confident. | D．Casual. |
| A．The mixing of two stages. | B．Adding yeast on Earth. |
| C．The preparation work on Earth. | D．Fermentation and carbonation. |
| A．It has been designed based on similar experiments. |
| B．It’s quite competitive compared with other designs. |
| C．It’s design has already been approved by TeamIndus. |
| D．Its process was adapted to make it safer and greener. |
| A．It seems like a pipe dream. | B．It’s extremely complicated. |
| C．It’s meaningful and hopeful. | D．It’s creative but impractical. |
9 . It’s late in the evening, time to close the book and turn off the computer. You’re done for the day. What you may not realize, however, is that the learning process actually continues in your dreams.
It might sound like science fiction, but researchers are increasingly focusing on the relationship between the knowledge and skills our brains absorb during the day and the often strange imaginings they generate at night. Scientists have found that dreaming about a task we’ve learned improves performance in that activity (suggesting that there’s some truth to the popular idea that we’re “getting” a foreign language once we begin dreaming in it). What’s more, dreaming may be an essential part of understanding, organizing and retaining what we learn.
While we sleep, research indicates, the brain replays the patterns of activity it experienced during waking hours, allowing us to enter what one psychologist calls a neural (神经的) virtual reality. A vivid example of such replay can be seen in a video researchers made recently about sleep disorders. They taught a series of dance moves to patients suffering from sleepwalking and related conditions. They then videotaped the subjects as they slept. Lying in bed, eyes closed, one female patient on the tape performs the dance moves she learned earlier.
This shows that while our bodies are at rest, our brains are drawing what’s important from the information and events we’ve recently encountered, then integrating that material into the vast store of what we already know. In a 2010 study, researchers reported that college students who dreamed about a computer maze (迷宫) task they had learned showed a 10-fold improvement in their ability to find their way through the maze compared with participants who did not dream about the task.
That study’s chief researcher Herbert Smith suggested that studying right before bedtime or taking a nap following a study session in the afternoon might increase the probability of dreaming about the material. Think about that as you go to sleep tonight.
1. What happens when one enters a dream state?| A．The body continues to act as if the sleeper were awake. |
| B．The neural activity of the brain will become intensified. |
| C．The brain once again experiences the learning activities of the day. |
| D．The brain behaves as if it were playing a virtual reality video game. |
| A．It replaces old information with new material. |
| B．It processes and absorbs newly acquired information. |
| C．It regroups information and places it in different files. |
| D．It systematizes all the information collected during the day. |
| A．Staying up late before finally going to bed. |
| B．Having a period of sleep right after studying. |
| C．Having a dream about anything you are interested in. |
| D．Thinking about the chances of dreaming about the material. |
| A．How study affects people’s dreams. |
| B．Why people learn more after sleeping. |
| C．What time students should study and sleep. |
| D．How dreaming may lead to improved learning outcomes. |
10 . Vincent Van Gogh (1853-1890) is one of the most popular of the Post-Impressionist painters. He is famed for the great vitality of his works which are characterized by expressive and emotive use of brilliant color and energetic application of impastoed (厚原料的) paint.
Below are some famous pictures painted by Vincent and the poetic lyrics(歌词) to Don McLean’s hit song Vincent (Starry, Starry Night) in the famous cartoon film 《Loving Vincent》 .
| Vincent Starry, starry night, Paint your palette(画板) blue and grey, Look out on a summer’s day, With eyes that know the darkness in my soul. Shadows on the hills, Sketch the trees and the daffodils, Catch the breeze and the winter chill, In colors on the snowy linen land. Now I understand What you tried to say to me How you suffered for your sanity(精神正常) How you tied to set them free. They would not listen They did not know how Perhaps they'll listen now. Starry, starry night. Flaming flowers that brightly blaze, Swirling clouds in violet haze(阴霾,疑惑), Reflect in Vincent’s eyes of china blue. Colors changing hue, morning. field of amber(黄色的) grain, Weathered faces lined in pain, Are soothed(抚慰) beneath the artist’s loving hand. For they could not love you, But still your love was true. And when no hope was left in sight On that starry, starry night, You took your life, as lovers often do. But I could have told you, Vincent, This world was never meant for one As beautiful as you. Now I think I know what you tried to say to me, How you suffered for your sanity, How you tried to set them free. They would not listen, They're not listening sill Perhaps they never will… |
the sunflowers |
Self Portrait with Bandaged Ear | |
the Yellow House | |
Starry Night | |
Head of a Peasant Woman | |
The Potato Eaters |
1. What attitude does the writer of the song have towards Van Gogh?
| A．Prejudiced and changeable. | B．Admiring and understanding. |
| C．Doubtful but respectful. | D．Positive but contradictory. |
| A．good at drawing on starry nights | B．murdered by one of his lovers |
| C．a person full of love and beauty | D．popular with people when be was alive |
| A．The sunflowers, the Potato Eaters |
| B．Self Portrait with Bandaged Ear, Head of a Peasant Woman |
| C．the Potato Eaters, the Yellow House |
| D．Self Portrait with Bandaged Ear, Wheat Field with Crows |
